The Republicans are complaining about Obama's initial offer in the budget negotiations despite it being pretty much in line with what he's always been about. They complain that it does not include any entitlement spending cuts...even though it's always been apparent that Obama and democrats do not support entitlement cuts.

Thus, since Republicans are the ones that want to cut entitlements...why have they not made an "adult, serious" counter-offer that includes the necessary entitlement cuts???

Adult-serious? C'mon Boatshoes. :rolleyes:

Prior to this election, the Republican House attempted on several occasions to introduce budgets and fiscal responsibility - including entitlement reform- but Reid's Senate childishly, foolishly, and irresponsibly blocked those attempts at every opportunity.

That being said, here's a good read from a year ago regarding these issues where the issue isn't really cutting New Deal programs rather eliminating the futile and exceedingly expensive spending on Johnson's Great Society programs...

http://www.familyinamerica.org/index.php?doc_id=36&cat_id=15

LMAO, just when you thought expectations for this administration couldn't get any lower, Boatshoes comes with a shovel.

Most people would consider it the President's job to LEAD, and come to the table with a serious proposal that he can get his party to buy into. Just because Obama hasn't demonstrated an penchant for anything other than giving speeches doesn't mean that's all the American people elected him for.

Cracks me up to no end that the same people who would deride the term "leading from behind" look for the Republican House to assume the leadership role. It's not suprising, though, considering what a joke the Axis of Incompetence is (Obama-Pelosi-Reid). Even people like Boatshoes can recognize that we need to look to the Republicans on these issues because the Democratic party is absolutely bereft of leadership at the moment.

believer;1334152 wrote:Adult-serious? C'mon Boatshoes. :rolleyes:

Prior to this election, the Republican House attempted on several occasions to introduce budgets and fiscal responsibility - including entitlement reform- but Reid's Senate childishly, foolishly, and irresponsibly blocked those attempts at every opportunity.

That being said, here's a good read from a year ago regarding these issues where the issue isn't really cutting New Deal programs rather eliminating the futile and exceedingly expensive spending on Johnson's Great Society programs...

http://www.familyinamerica.org/index.php?doc_id=36&cat_id=15

Even if we accept all of the points you're making...why are the Republicans not making these arguments in a counter-offer in these budget negotiations in response to Obama's apparently ridiculous offer?

Same assholes, new election cycle. Why would they act any less retarded than before election day?

gut;1334155 wrote:LMAO, just when you thought expectations for this administration couldn't get any lower, Boatshoes comes with a shovel.

Most people would consider it the President's job to LEAD, and come to the table with a serious proposal that he can get his party to buy into. Just because Obama hasn't demonstrated an penchant for anything other than giving speeches doesn't mean that's all the American people elected him for.

Cracks me up to no end that the same people who would deride the term "leading from behind" look for the Republican House to assume the leadership role. It's not suprising, though, considering what a joke the Axis of Incompetence is (Obama-Pelosi-Reid). Even people like Boatshoes can recognize that we need to look to the Republicans on these issues because the Democratic party is absolutely bereft of leadership at the moment.

It is sort of ironic isn't it?

gut;1334155 wrote:LMAO, just when you thought expectations for this administration couldn't get any lower, Boatshoes comes with a shovel.

Most people would consider it the President's job to LEAD, and come to the table with a serious proposal that he can get his party to buy into. Just because Obama hasn't demonstrated an penchant for anything other than giving speeches doesn't mean that's all the American people elected him for.

Cracks me up to no end that the same people who would deride the term "leading from behind" look for the Republican House to assume the leadership role. It's not suprising, though, considering what a joke the Axis of Incompetence is (Obama-Pelosi-Reid). Even people like Boatshoes can recognize that we need to look to the Republicans on these issues because the Democratic party is absolutely bereft of leadership at the moment.

You see...you just claim it's a lack of "leadership" because Obama and the Democrats make a proposal that you don't personally agree with. If immediate entitlement cuts are righteous in the minds of the Republicans why do they not make a counter-offer? It's been obvious that Obama and the democrats don't think entitlement cuts are righteous...hence their "tax the rich" approach.

believer;1334159 wrote:It is sort of ironic isn't it?

It's ironic that Republicans who support spending cuts want Obama and the democrats to put a proposal containing spending cuts when that party has always been the "tax and spend" party.

I mean Republicans are acting like they're surprised Obama made the offer he ran on during the campaign...

BoatShoes;1334160 wrote:You see...you just claim it's a lack of "leadership" because Obama and the Democrats make a proposal that you don't personally agree with. If immediate entitlement cuts are righteous in the minds of the Republicans why do they not make a counter-offer? It's been obvious that Obama and the democrats don't think entitlement cuts are righteous...hence their "tax the rich" approach.

No, Obama's proposal is complete amateur hour. It wreaks of arrogance and incompetence. You do not offend and infuriate the opposition with a ridiculously insulting proposal. It would appear Obama's ability here fall somewhere short of "negotiating for dummies". Such tactics typically results in a "fuck you" as the other party walks away. He demonstrates what a complete empty suit he is at nearly every opportunity, yet the kool-aid drinkers continue to defend him

And if the Dems think entitlement cuts aren't "righteous", they not only lack compassion in setting these programs up to fail miserably without reform, but they are flat stupid.

BoatShoes;1334161 wrote: I mean Republicans are acting like they're surprised Obama made the offer he ran on during the campaign...

That might be insightful if it were true. Obama did NOT remotely make the offer had ran on during the campaign. Double the tax cuts. No balance. And he threw in the "blank check" of eliminating the debt ceiling for good measure.

The proposal Obama made is on par with what one might expect from a stubborn child.

BoatShoes;1334144 wrote:The Republicans are complaining about Obama's initial offer in the budget negotiations despite it being pretty much in line with what he's always been about. They complain that it does not include any entitlement spending cuts...even though it's always been apparent that Obama and democrats do not support entitlement cuts.

Thus, since Republicans are the ones that want to cut entitlements...why have they not made an "adult, serious" counter-offer that includes the necessary entitlement cuts???

The repubs have been putting forth solid plans for two years, all have been rebuffed and vilified.
obama won the election; time for him to lead .............. we have waited for 4 years with nothing to show, can he lead, or is he just a neighborhood punk activist?

BoatShoes;1334161 wrote: I mean Republicans are acting like they're surprised Obama made the offer he ran on during the campaign...

obama is putting forth plans that he himself said were "unpatriotic" because of the deficits they generate.


You must be in the pinot grigio big time tonight to toss this bullsh!! out.

The Republicans draconian plans have rightfully been rejected by the American people.

lol, you cannot get over the election.

isadore;1334286 wrote:lol, you cannot get over the election.

I was over it very quickly - heck, a prolonged shitty economy is good for my business. You will probably not fair nearly as well with 4 more years of Obama.

gut;1334376 wrote:I was over it very quickly - heck, a prolonged ****ty economy is good for my business. You will probably not fair nearly as well with 4 more years of Obama.

gosh a ruddies, you will be able to provide the funds needed to keep unemployment benefits and all the entitlement going. thanks

Republicans all over the t.v. today saying Obama doesn't want to cut entitlements enough.

So, how much deficit reduction would we have if Obama endorsed the entitlement reforms floating around?

1. chained CPI for Social security is about $190 billion over a decade....$19 billion per year

2. raising the medicare age is like $115 billion over a decade according to the CBO so...$11.5 billion per year

3. higher premiums for wealthier medicare recipients is $20 billion over a decade

So...their ideas amount to $300 billion over a decade....less than is saved by simply allowing the top marginal tax rate to rise.

lol.

And they complain about Obama's proposals not being serious? No wonder they're not making a counter-offer and instead just stomping their feet and yelling "entitlement cuts blargh!" as if they have all these ideas to save money lol. Nevermind that those proposals would all cause substantial pain whereas allowing the top marginal rate to rise would not.

BoatShoes;1334161 wrote:It's ironic that Republicans who support spending cuts want Obama and the democrats to put a proposal containing spending cuts when that party has always been the "tax and spend" party.

I mean Republicans are acting like they're surprised Obama made the offer he ran on during the campaign...

Actually in the campaign we heard 100s of times about a balanced approach. He said over and over increased taxes on the rich with some spending cuts.

It is Obama that has moved once again to "no cuts".

Sorry Boat, but you are wrong.

believer;1334152 wrote:Adult-serious? C'mon Boatshoes. :rolleyes:

Prior to this election, the Republican House attempted on several occasions to introduce budgets and fiscal responsibility - including entitlement reform- but Reid's Senate childishly, foolishly, and irresponsibly blocked those attempts at every opportunity.

That being said, here's a good read from a year ago regarding these issues where the issue isn't really cutting New Deal programs rather eliminating the futile and exceedingly expensive spending on Johnson's Great Society programs...

http://www.familyinamerica.org/index.php?doc_id=36&cat_id=15

This thread should have died its ultimate death after this post. What ignorance. The House of Representatives have sent budget after budget to the Senate where Harry Reid defacated all over them instead of having any sort of dialogue, discussion or debate.

But wait...I remember...it's Bush's fault still. My bad. Carry on.

ccrunner609;1334276 wrote:only by the dumb majority

GTFO. Stop trying to qualify only people who agree with you as smart or patriotic or true Americans or whatever. Getting tired of that bullshit.

I'm not more stupid or less American because I have different opinions on politics than you. This goes both ways and Republicans are certainly not the only ones guilty.

Anyway, I'm somewhat shocked that so many economists are warning of a recession if we go over the "fiscal cliff". It's a combo of $100B in tax increases and spending cuts this year, an average of $150B a year over 10. That's a rounding error. If we can't absorb $100-$150B from cutting the fat on a $1T+ deficit, then we are in serious trouble.

It's all fungible, anyway. There's no balanced budget amendment - not like the $100B or so isn't going ot be offset with spending increases and tax cuts/deductions elsewhere.

BGFalcons82;1334725 wrote:This thread should have died its ultimate death after this post. What ignorance. The House of Representatives have sent budget after budget to the Senate where Harry Reid defacated all over them instead of having any sort of dialogue, discussion or debate.

But wait...I remember...it's Bush's fault still. My bad. Carry on.

lol...maybe it's just sour grapes I don't know.

Why no offer?

Oh I know why...

1. They can come nowhere close to closing the deficit with their floated proposals

2. Their proposals are vastly unpopular (i.e. you yourself have complained about Obama "cutting" medicare as were the Republicans only a few short weeks ago).

jmog;1334631 wrote:Actually in the campaign we heard 100s of times about a balanced approach. He said over and over increased taxes on the rich with some spending cuts.

It is Obama that has moved once again to "no cuts".

Sorry Boat, but you are wrong.

He offered $400 billion in medicare cuts along with cuts to defense...but those don't count as "real cuts" as we all know
Where is the counter offer from Republicans...the supposed adults...with the real, serious cuts?????

^^^Oh what a crock. The guy has been president for 4 years (oh,wait...maybe I should say he's been running for president for 4 years). And he doesn't know what the sticking points are? He expects bi-partisanship, then he proposes what he wanted ..and then more?. This is the part of the negotiation where the other sides walks out. That's why you don't have a counter proposal....he knows what he needs to do to get a compromise....and he continues to posture.

BoatShoes;1334888 wrote:He offered $400 billion in medicare cuts along with cuts to defense...but those don't count as "real cuts" as we all know
Where is the counter offer from Republicans...the supposed adults...with the real, serious cuts?????

Oh...so your original post you say he is talking about no cuts, now you say "oh wait, he has offered $400B in medicare cuts".

Can't change your story now BS, just makes your posts look like your name (BS).